Ferring v OHMI - Kora (Koragel) (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ T-169/14 (13 May 2015)

Ferring v OHMI - Kora (Koragel) (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ T-169/14 (13 May 2015)

There is no likelihood of confusion between Koragel and CHORAGON, given the low visual similarity, above average aural similarity for German-speaking consumers, absence of conceptual comparison, and heightened level of attention of the relevant public. The Board of Appeal's assessment is upheld and the opposition is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EUECJ T-169/14
Parties
Applicant: Ferring BV; Respondent: Kora Corp. Ltd; Respondent: OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Community Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Board of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Action dismissed; opposition rejected
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Opposition, Likelihood of Confusion, Comparison of Goods and Signs
Intellectual Property European Union Law Trade Mark Opposition Likelihood of Confusion Comparison of Goods and Signs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ferring BV

Applicant

Kora Corp. Ltd

Respondent

OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Community Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Board of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks Koragel and CHORAGON under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
  2. 2 Assessment of similarity between goods and signs
  3. 3 Determination of relevant public and their level of attention

Ratio Decidendi

There is no likelihood of confusion between Koragel and CHORAGON, given the low visual similarity, above average aural similarity for German-speaking consumers, absence of conceptual comparison, and heightened level of attention of the relevant public. The Board of Appeal's assessment is upheld and the opposition is rejected.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; opposition rejected

Orders

  • Ferring BV to pay the costs